Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564790",
    "label": "Issue Papers - Aerospace Industry",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564790"
}

{
    "id": "118564790",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564790",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Issue Papers - Aerospace Industry",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564790",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Issue Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-002-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-002-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-002-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564790",
    "naId": 118564790,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-002-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "02b3edfe2092676a",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Issue Papers - Aerospace Industry\nBox: P30\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nAEROSPACE\nPB\nJM\nWAS\nLG\nEJG\nGS\nJJ\nEM\nJC\nMKD\nThe following has been approved for answering queries:\nGovernor Reagan supports federal backing of a loan to the\nLockheed Aircraft Corporation to enable the company to manufacture\nand sell the 1011 \"Tri-Star\" airbus.\nThe governor feels, however, that the loan guarantee should\nbe conditioned upon the feasibility of producing the plane at\ncurrently estimated costs, and without any significant delay beyond\npresently estimated delivery dates.\nHe also feels that safeguards should be provided to make\ncertain that the loan guarantee cannot be used in any way to improve\nLockheed's competitive position over other aerospace firms in relation\nto other projects.\n5-18-71\nejg\nHerospace\nSpace Shuttle's new era dictates different needs for space\nlaunches and retrievals. At the outset of America's space\nage we were seeking both thrust and reliability. Then, Cape\nKennedy afforded the needed boost of an eastward thrust near\nthe Equator and ocean-overflight as a potential safety haven\nwhile we improved reliability.\nBut, the Space Shuttle has different requirements. The\nShuttle will have assured thrust-capability, a necessity for\nseveral azimuth angles of launch, an emergency ability to\nabort safely and intact, and the intent of a glide or powered\nlanding at a dry land base. These abilities, and concurrent\nrequirements, prompt the search for an applicable base-site\nin the continental United States.\nCalifornia offers a solution.\nCalifornia's solution is the currently existing, applicable,\nand complementary facilities inherent in the combined use of\nthe bases at Vandenberg and Edwards. Vandenberg for launch\nand most retrievals; Edwards for alternate and emergency\nretrievals.\nThereby, the use of Edwards for flight-testing implies that\nfacilities developed for such testing could be economically\nphased into follow-on use for retrievals. The proximity of the\ntwo bases makes possible an efficient interchange between the\ntwo, initially during testing and ultimately during operations,\nwithout costly dislocation.\nCombined, they resolve most objections found elsewhere, and\ncombined they equal or surpass most isolated and individual\nadvantages claimed elsewhere.\nChoice of a launch-retrieval base site should be made on a\npriority-rated scale ranked by significance to national goals\nand weighted by value to operations. California endorses a\ndecision evaluated on that criteria. California has the\nqualifications to justify a decision reached on that basis.\n- 1 -\nCalifornia's qualifications, combining Vandenberg and Edwards:\nStrategically essential\nDemonstrated necessity\nForeign avoidance\nFavorably situated\nOptimum climate\nExisting facilities\nConvenient fuel\nAirfield capability\nWaterborne adaptable\nAccessible manufacturers\nAscending importance\nEliminates moth-balling\nOverwater trajectory\nSafety zoned\nSparsely inhabited\nCasualty avoiding\nDispersing sonic-boom\nCompatible mating\nCost efficient\nSkilled manpower\nReceptive economy\nAerospace compatibility\nManning capabilities\nEnvironment conscious\nCumulatively superior\n- 2 -\nStrategically essential\nReportedly, over 93% of America's orbiting space shots are\npolar. Thereby observing the Earth perpendicularly at\nevery latitude as it rotates below. America's polar shots\nstart from Vandenberg.\nRetrograde shots achieve sun-synchronous orbits to view\nthe Earth consistently in sunlight or dark. 133 of\nAmerica's 136 retrograde shots were fired from Vandenberg.\nThe majority of shots America evidently deems strategically\nessential are made from Vandenberg. Prudently, we should\nassure our strategic obligations first, our less-essential\nobligations thereafter.\nDemonstrated necessity\nVandenberg's necessity is evident from the decision to\ndevelop our capability there even though initiating the\nCape Kennedy space site.\nSince 1957 the need for a Vandenberg capability has been\ndeveloped and demonstrated; a necessity not satisfied\nelsewhere.\nForeign avoidance\nShots from Vandenberg avoid flight over foreign territory\nduring initial ascent. For Space Shuttle, a California\nlaunch site also avoids the booster's return flight over\nforeign territory.\nThe problems of having dropped missile parts upon Cuba\nfrom Cape Kennedy, the threat of the Cuban missile crisis\nyears later, and the national policy decision to avoid\nCuban overflights underscore the shortcomings of Cape\nKennedy for polar and some retrograde shots which comprise\nthe bulk of our space azimuth-angle needs. Space Shuttle\nshots to the south from Cape Kennedy would overfly Cuba\nand Panama; boosters would be returning over Cuba\nvulnerability at a 13,000 foot altitude. Such a possi-\nbility induces the likelihood of exploitation of our\nforeign neighbors by our international competitors.\n3 -\nFavorably situated\nCombined or separately, the two California sites are\nfavorably situated. They facilitate strategic needs,\noffer coastal availability or inland isolation, semi-\nrural locale but nearby metropolitan requirements,\nsoutherly for thrust of Equatorial-nearness yet Western\nin weather advantages, and convenience to aerospace\ncenters and suppliers.\nOptimum climate\nPredictable weather and evenness of climate aid operations.\nCalifornia affords inland desert dryness and a less\npervasive coastal humidity than that deteriorating Cape\nKennedy facilities. Minimum necessity for protection\nfrom weather extremes favors operations.\nAt Vandenberg thunderstorms occur less than 5 days a year,\nwhile thunderstorms at Cape Kennedy average 75 annually.\nLightning activity, which is almost unknown at Vandenberg\nand Edwards, occurs 100 days a year at Cape Kennedy where\nlightning strikes between 20 and 40 times within a square\nmile each year.\nThe modest wind gust level at Vandenberg is tolerable,\ncompared with gusts approaching hurricane velocity at Cape\nKennedy.\nExisting facilities\nThe largest launch area in the western world, Vandenberg\nmaintains 44 launch sites of which 30 are active. With\na range ten times the size of Cape Kennedy, the Vandenberg\nbase comprises 100,000 acres traversed by 327 miles of\nroads, dotted with 3,500 buildings -- 1,400 of which\nrelate to base operations, and 2-1/4 million square feet\nof which are occupied by missile contractors. Vandenberg\nrepresents a construction investment since 1957 of\n$2.4 million.\nVandenberg and Edwards admirably satisfy the caveat in\nsite selection: \"make maximum use of existing facilities\".\n4\nThe premier landing and testing facility in the Nation\nexists at Edwards insofar as extensiveness, visibility,\nunobstructed access and existing facilities. Covering\nover 300,000 acres, and served by an array of hangars,\nbuildings, shops and laboratories, Edwards maintains\nan assembly of tracking facilities, houses the Aerospace\nResearch Pilot School and since 1953 has conducted\nrocket test firings at the $150 million aggregation of\nhigh thrust rocket test stands and research equipment\nbuildings.\nConvenient fuel\nCalifornia already has both the natural gas network\nas well as plant facilities for converting natural gas\nto liquid hydrogen. California's liquid hydrogen plants\ncan produce more than the 90 tons-per-day the Shuttle\nwill require during its peak operation. California\nhas over three times the liquid hydrogen plant capacity\nof any other state.\nWithin 150 miles of either Vandenberg or Edwards, plants\ncan supply by tank truck more than adequate fuel for\nthe Shuttle's initial years.\nBy contrast, the Cape Kennedy site requires a 740-mile\nhaul by truck or train for most of the liquid hydrogen\nconsumed. One study concluded: the costly alternative\nis to dismantle one of California's plants and re-\nconstruct it in Florida.\nA California site also makes unnecessary another\nalternative, that of an international agreement for\nconverting crude oil to liquid hydrogen in another country\nfor shipment to America, thereby avoiding American\nimport duties on crude oil.\nAirfield capability\nVandenberg's airfield adjoins a likely Shuttle launch\ncomplex. Adequacy is demonstrated by its use for\ntraining by commercial pilots of 747 aircraft which\napproximate the booster in size. Extensive flat land\nsurrounds the strip, making expansion of its 8,000 feet\nconvenient to achieve.\n5 -\nEdwards is one of the Nation's largest landing areas.\nA 15,000 foot concrete runway adjoins the 44 square\nmile sun-hardened, wind-smoothed Rogers Dry Lake.\nIn turn, Rogers connects with 27 square miles of\nRosamond Dry Lake bed. Seven natural runways criss-\ncross the 11-mile length of Rogers Dry Lake. The\nsupportive strength of these dry lake beds is\nequivalent to a three-foot thickness of concrete and\ncan support up to 250 pounds per square inch.\nThe largest and heaviest of the world's aircraft\nland here. Three billion dollars worth of aircraft\nhave been saved since 1946 from loss of crash landing\nby directing them to Edwards.\nBy contrast, a landing strip adjacent to a Shuttle\ncomplex at Cape Kennedy would have to be built at more\nthan $1,500 a foot.\nWaterborne adatable\nCoastal accessibility makes Vandenberg convenient by\nboat or barge to all the Pacific aerospace ports from\nSeattle to San Diego and to shipments from the Gulf\nCoast.\nA sheltered lagoon exists on Vandenberg's 36-mile\ncoastline within a short distance of the intended\nShuttle site. Limited dredging could prepare this\nconvenient natural port to receive Shuttle barge\nshipments. Reportedly, the sand bottom is coarser and\nless subject to silting and wave action than the Cape\nKennedy barge channel.\nOver a decade of logistics experience has been perfected\nat Vandenberg in missile and aerospace shipments by\nplane, truck, and rail. Shuttle shipments can adapt\nthis knowledge in the handling of large and awkward\ncomponents.\nAccessible manufacturers\nConvenience to manufacture and assembly is a cost-\nefficiency criterion in selecting a base site.\nVirtually every manufacturer earmarked as a likely\nparticipant, including payload and servicing contractors,\nhas a major installation in the nearby California and\n6 -\nPacific Coast aerospace complex. Most are located\nwithin an easy drive of Vandenberg or Edwards,\nmaking shipment less time-consuming, servicing\nconvenient, and reducing the costs for rotation of\npersonnel.\nAll major aircraft builders use Edwards for test\npurposes; most of those engaged in today's missile\nhardware business maintain personnel and service\nfacilities at Vandenberg.\nAscending importance\nVandenberg's importance and frequency of use will\ncorrespondingly increase as the Apollo era ends and\nas Space Lab is completed.\nThe diminishing of space work elsewhere, and the\nfour or five year hiatus in manned space flight,\nincreases the reliance on and need for this major\nremaining site.\nThe continuing necessity for Vandenberg's capabilities,\nthe steady schedule of operations, a readily accessible\nwork force, and a physical plant maintained in response\nto current operations increase the legitimacy of\nVandenberg's importance.\nEliminates moth-balling\nCost savings occur when our space program can avoid\nincurring the relatively unproductive expense of\nmoth-balling and the follow-on reactivation expenses.\nFacilities at Vandenberg and Edwards will continue to\nbe used in a regular schedule of operations and the\nexpense of moth-balling while awaiting the Shuttle\nera can be avoided. Furthermore, construction at\nVandenberg and Edwards could be scheduled when timely\nand feasible rather than being initiated in the near-\nfuture as a means to stretch-out, prolong, and main-\ntain an otherwise declining level of activity.\n7\nOverwater trajectory\nVandenberg's bay-window on the Pacific scans 210°\nof cean front, from 120° to 330°.\nThe overwhelming preponderance of our current space\nshots, both polar and retrograde, capitalize on\nthese overwater trajectories from Vandenberg.\nTherefore, if an overwater trajectory is advantageous\nduring the Shuttle's development as well as for\nfrequently used azimuth angles yet paralleling\nrelatively nearby emergency or alternate landing\nsites in the continental United States without\nrequiring foreign landing rights\nVandenberg's\nlocation combines these favorable factors.\nSafety zoned\nEdwards encompasses 300,000 acres; Vandenberg\n100,000. This provides an important buffer margin\nof safety. The nearly vertically rising Shuttle\nwill have reached a 100,000 foot elevation before\ntraversing 20 miles on the ground. Although\nengineered for intact abort, a catastrophe-prone\ncritical period could occur during the initial rise\nprior to separation before sufficient altitude is\nreached for guided landing.\nIn this interim, a margin of safety is assured for\nthe off-base populace if debris falls within the\nperimeter of a large land-area base. Narrow or\nlimited-area base sites cannot offer this safety-zone\nafforded by Vandenberg and Edwards, two of America's\nlargest bases in ground area.\nSparsely inhabited\nVandenberg and Edwards combine a unique feature:\nsparsely settled, low-population density nearby,\nyet easy accessibility to the cosmopolitan\nadvantages of major metropolitan centers.\n8 -\nBoth satisfy a preference specified by one study:\nlow-population density for the initial 100-mile\ndownrange along the most likely used azimuth\nangles.\nThe desert immediately surrounding Edwards is one\nof America's least populated areas; Vandenberg is\nin the heart of a sparsely-settled, primarily\nrural area. Likely eastward Shuttle corridors\npass over lightly inhabited national forest and\ndesert terrain.\nCasualty avoiding\nEdwards and Vandenberg claim at least seven factors\nthat aid in minimizing casualty possibilities:\n(1) extensive, immediate base-site perimeter; (2)\navailable down-range corridors; (3) overwater\ncorridors for heavily used flight azimuths; (4)\nlow population density for at least the first\n100 miles of a corridor; (5) opportunity for the\nShuttle to achieve substantial altitude before\noverflying even moderate-sized population centers;\n(6) clearly defined landing alternatives, either\nscheduled or emergency; and (7) 'consistently\nreliable weather making advance planning possible.\nDispersing sonic-boom\nOrbiter sonic booms can be dispersed on return over\nthe Pacific Ocean for all Vandenberg eastward launches;\nsoutherly launches can disperse orbiter sonic boom\noff the Pacific Coast by means of a dog-leg return\nglide angle. This offshore dispersal of orbiter\nsonic boom is achievable by practically no other\ncandidate site without the costly establishment of\nalternative landing sites developed solely for that\npurpose.\nMost orbiter returns to Edwards will also disperse\ntheir sonic booms in the sparsely settled desert\ntest range where aircraft sound effects have long\nbeen isolated from the public.\n9\nBooster flights south from Vandenberg disperse\ntheir sonic booms over the Pacific; eastward\nbooster flights effect booms largely within the\nEdwards test range, national forest or southwest\ndesert country.\nUnlike some other candidate sites, California\nlaunched Shuttles will subject no other inter-\nnational neighbor to our sonic booms.\nCompatible mating\nMost engineering studies tend to prefer horizontal\nmating of the booster and orbiter, either during\npreparation, concurrently with roll-out, or at the\nlaunch pad. Some studies advocate lifting booster\nand orbiter, at the pad, by strong-back and mate\nat that time.\nCape Kennedy's vertical Vehicle Assembly Building\nimposes an obligation to examine at length the\npossibility of vertical mating and crawler-\ntransporter roll-out.\nNeither California site, Vandenberg or Edwards,\nimpose the obligation of devising engineering\ntechniques or modifications of the Shuttle to\nsatisfy extensive existing structures. Either\nmethod, horizontal or vertical, is thereby adaptable\nto the California sites, whichever represents\npriorities of practical engineering and orbiter\nand booster design.\nCost efficient\nAn array of inherent Vandenberg and Edwards\nadvantages contribute to efficiency and the mini-\nmizing of cost, both in initiating as well as\nlong term operating of a Shuttle base.\n10 -\nStrategic need is satisfied without assuming costs\nof duplication to achieve that capability elsewhere\nTest development facilities at Edwards could cost-\neffectively translate into retrieval base operations\nserving Vandenberg. Favorable climate has cost\nadvantages. Existing facilities minimize new\nconstruction costs. The expense of additional\nnatural gas network system is not needed. Nearby\nliquid hydrogen plants reduce new plant expense.\nExisting airfields make construction minimal.\nCoastal accessibility reduces costs of accommodating\nlarger components. Nearby manufacturers diminish\nseveral expenses of accommodation. Vandenberg's\ncontinuing operation minimizes otherwise costlier\nstretch-out elsewhere. Moth-balling expenditures\nare unnecessary. Manning facilities may reduce\nnew construction costs. Competitively available\nmanpower indicates cost efficiences.\nAerospace compatibility\nHistorically, California is an accustomed partner\nin the development of flight. Californians are\nattuned to aerospace activity, accept it as natural\nto modern life, are agreeable to its presence,\nindustry is attuned to its requirements, and the\neconomy is conscious of its practices.\nCalifornia's level of understanding and sophistication\nabout aerospace makes it an accepting environment\nfor the establishment of a Shuttle base.\nManning capabilities\nThe Manned Orbiting Laboratory with its allied\ntraining, launch, housing and servicing facilities\nexists at Vandenberg. The base has been brought to\nthe threshold of manned space flight as a natural\nadjunct to its unmanned capabilities. This\nreadiness could phase into Shuttle use.\nEdwards has extensive experience at studying and\nadapting the talents of man to the capabilities of\nadvanced aircraft. Both sites could easily serve\nShuttle's manned requirements.\n- 11 -\nEnvironment conscious\nAll site candidates should be studied for their\nlikely effect on man and nature, their respect\nfor land use, their impingement upon other needs,\nand their effect on natural terrain.\nVandenberg has witnessed several generations of\nuse, yet has maintained a pleasant accommodation\nwith nature, preservation of most of the natural\nterrain and phenomenon, and has had a minimum of\nunsightly nearby commercial exploitation. Local\nresidents are aware of continuing this responsi-\nbility toward the total environment.\nEdwards, a highly isolated location with very\nlittle plant and animal life, has nevertheless\nmade only the slightest alteration on the vastness\nand stark outline of the California desert.\nShuttle activity at Edwards is unlikely to induce\nany appreciable change in the environment.\nEdwards' vast size, on the other hand, offers an\nopportunity to continue preservation of this unique\nsegment of American terrain.\nSkilled manpower\nNumerically, the total of California's experience\naerospace manpower is over twice that of nearly\nall other major site-contending states combined.\nIn duration, California's aerospace manpower\nexperience is frequently two generations in depth\nand often over three decades in length.\nThe size of the working populace, 7-1/2% to 8% of\nwhich are now unemployed\nthe majority being\naerospace\nindicates a larger total unemployed\naerospace populace than any other state or\ncombination thereof.\n- 12 -\nFor Shuttle base staffing this implies: (1)\ncost advantage of competitive availability;\n(2) many applicants per opening thereby making\nselection for quality more likely; (3) a work\nforce already residing in an area of pre-\ndetermined preference; (4) less necessity for\ncostly inducements to relocate at isolated\nlocations; and (5) unlikely need for extensive\neducation to upgrade the work force.\nReceptive economy\nCalifornia's extensive and highly diversified\neconomy could absorb the infusion of Shuttle-\nrelated activity without shock of dislocation.\nOn the contrary, even the placement of nearly\nall Shuttle-related work in California would not\nequal or offset the larger loss of aerospace\nwork which California has suffered in recent\nyears.\nUnlike isolated or rural Shuttle base candidate\nsites in other states, a study concluded that\nlocation of the Shuttle base at Vandenberg would\nonly moderately effect the nearby local economy\nby maintaining the same modest rate of growth\nexperience during the past ten or fifteen years.\nCalifornia's gross national product is equivalent\nto that of the world's seventh largest nation,\nranking in between that of the United Kingdom\nand Italy. The scope of California's economy,\nthe size of populace and area, make it equivalent\nto a major American region than the limited\nand conventional interpretation of a state.\nCumulatively superior\nIn total, the reasons for California Shuttle-site\nsuitability are numerous. In importance of\ncontribution toward satisfying Shuttle needs, the\nreasons are influential. In necessity, the reasons\nare logical.\nThe foregoing has scanned the more obvious\nqualifications. Each is worthy of greater\ninvestigation. Each will reveal an increasing\nnumber of justifications for establishment of a\nShuttle base in California; justifications which\ncompare favorably with other candidates,\njustifications which cumulatively endorse\nCalifornia, and justifications which continue\nan already established importance of California\nsites for space endeavors.\n==== 14\nHerospace\n4 /\nCalifornia Space Shuttle Task Force\nApril 15, 1971\nROBERT H. VOLK\nCHAIRMAN\nJAMES A. COOK\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR\n0\nAttached is a tentative compilation of financial and contract\nimplications for California of the Space Shuttle:\nProbable manufacturing income through short-\nrange of 1970's.\nPossible launch/retrieval base income as a\nfollow-on economic leveler, 1970's, 80's\nand on.\nCurrent status of major shuttle contracts.\nComposition of shuttle contractor \"teams\".\nFIGUEROASTREET.LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 (213) 687-6305\nYOU MAY FIND THIS TO BE A HANDY REFERENCE\nPOTENTIAL CALIFORNIA INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING AND\nBASE OPERATIONS - SPACE SHUTTLE\nSPACE SHUTTLE INITIAL EXPENDITURES\n$8.5 Billion likely RDT&E expenditures for booster and orbiter\nthrough 1972-1979 time period, peaking about 1975-1976.\n(Estimates as high as $9.6 Billion, as low as $6.4 Billion)\n$4 Billion of that probably for the orbiter.\n$3 Billion of the total RDT&E effort could probably be obtained\nby California prime and sub-contractors through either of\nthe team efforts by North American Rockwell or McDonnell-\n(\nDouglas; assuming assembly in California, flight test at\nEdwards AFB.\n$600,000 engine expenditures (Estimates as high as $1 Billion)\n1972-1979 time period.\nAlmost entire expenditure could be obtained by California through\nthe proposals of either Aerojet Liquid Rocket Corp. or Rocketdyne.\nBASE INITIAL AND CONTINUING OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES\nBase modification/construction\n$400 Million tentatively earmarked for investment in base\nconstruction. Effort currently to reduce that expenditure\nby utilizing existing facilities. Late 1973 into intial\n1977 time period.\nNearly entire amount could be obtained for a Vandenberg/\nEdwards combination minus existing applicable facilities.\nFlight operations\n$67.5 to $75 Million yearly in 1977-78 time period, rising to\n$270 Million - $300 Million, annually, in the\nearly 1980's and throughout decade.\nPayload costs provide additional income (Nearby preparation,\nassembly, repair, possibly manufacture)\n1970's base expenditures: approx. $650 Million plus payload.\n1980's base expenditures: almost $3 Billion plus payload, and\non into 1990's\nNearly entire amount could be obtained for\na Vandenberg/Edwards combination\nMANUFACTURING AND LAUNCH/RETRIEVAL BASE OPERATIONS\nFor California:\nManufacturing and base start-up could provide $4 Billion\nin the 1970's\nBase operations could provide an economic leveler after\nmanufacturing of $3 Billion per decade thereafter.\nSTATUS OF SPACE SHUTTLE CONTRACTS\nPHASE A. Initial Space Shuttle studies\nLaunch & vehicle reentry studies\nAmount: $450,000 each\nTime : Jan 31 to Sept 30, 1969\nWho : Convair Division, General Dynamics Corp.\n0\nLockheed Corp.\nNorth American Rockwell Corp.\nMcDonnell-Douglas Corp.\nAdditional Phase A. Alternate designs\nWho\nAmount\nTime\nLockheed\n$1 Million\nJune 30, '70 - May 31, '71\nChrysler\n$1 Million\nJune 30, '70 - May 31, '71\nGrumman\n$ 4 Million\nJuly 6, '70 - June 6, '71\nPHASE B. (Research on facilities, logistics, advanced technology\nrequirements. Ends with selection of single project concept.)\nEngine design, preliminary vehicle design.\nAmount: $6 Million each\nTime : June 12, '70 - May 12, '71\nWho : Aerojet-General Corp., Div. of General Tire &\nRubber\nRocketdyne Division, North American Rockwell Corp.\nPratt & Whitney Aircraft, Div. of United Aircraft\nVehicle design studies\nAmount: $10.8 Million each\nWho\nTime\nMcDonnel1-Douglas Corp. June 19, '70 - May 19, '71\nNorth American Rockwell June 30, '70 - May 31, '71\nConclusion Phase B studies: NASA reopens competition for vehicle construction\nto other corporate teams.\nPHASE C. Contractors develop exact design specifications.\nPHASE D. Hardware is fabricated and tested.\nSPACE SHUTTLE, PHASE B CONTRACTOR \"TEAMS\"\nSubject to possible reorganization and reallocation at conclusion\nof Phase B studies (June 1971) and selection of single vehicle construction\nteam.\nMcDONNELL-DOUGLAS TEAM\nMcDonnell Douglas\n(St. Louis, Missouri)\nSpace Systems Center\n(Huntington Beach, Cal. however\nmajor mfg. work likely in St.\nLouis, Mo. and Michaud, La.)\nMartin Marietta Corp.\n(Baltimore, Maryland)\nDenver Division\n(Denver, Colorado)\n(possible follow-on to Titan work done in Colorado)\nTRW, Inc.\n(Cleveland, Ohio, & Los Angeles)\nSystems Group\n(Redondo Beach, Ca.)\nRaytheon Co.\n(Lexington, Mass.)\nSperry Rand Corp.\n(Lexington, Mass.)\nNorden Div., United Aircraft Corp.\n(Norwalk, Conn.)\nPan American\n(New York, N.Y.)\nBase operations\n(Coco Beach, Florida)\nSociete Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale (France)\nHawker-Siddeley-Aviation, Inc.\n(England)\nERNO-Raumfahrttechnig, GMBH\n(Germany)\nNORTH AMERICAN TEAM\nNorth American Rockwell\n(Pittsburgh, Penna.)\nSpace Division\n(Downey, Cal. & Seal Beach, Cal.)\n-Program & system integration\n-Orbiter development\nGeneral Dynamics\n(New York, N.Y.)\nConvair Aerospace Division\n(San Diego, Ca. however, mfg.\nlikely at Michaud, La.)\n-Booster development\nIBM\n(Gaithersburg, Maryland)\n-Data management, installation at site\nSPACE SHUTTLE, PHASE B CONTRACTOR \"TEAMS\"\nPAGE 2\nNORTH AMERICAN TEAM (cont'd)\nHoneywell\n(Minneapolis, Minnesota)\n-Vehicle stabilization & control at site\nAmerican Airlines\n(New York, N.Y. & Tulsa, Okla.)\n-Aircraft-type maintenance and operations at site\nBritish Aircraft Corp.\n(England)\nMesserschmitt, Boelkow & Blohm\n(Germany)\nGRUMMAN-BOEING TEAM\nGrumman Aerospace Corp.\n(Bethpage, N.Y. & possibility\nof final assembly at Michaud,\nLouisiana)\n-Systems manager\n-Orbiter\nBoeing\n(Seattle, Wash., however major\nmfg. work likely at Wichita,\nKansas, and Michaud, La.)\n-Booster\n-Operations\nAerojet General\n(El Monte, California)\n-Cryogenic tankage\n(Fullerton, California)\nAvco Systems Division\n(Wilmington, Mass.)\n-Thermal protection systems\nGeneral Electric\n(Schenectady, N.Y.)\n-Avionics\n(Philadelphia, Pa.)\n-some protection materials work\nNorthrop\n(Los Angeles, Cal.)\n-Orbiter technology\n(Hawthorne, Cal.)\nEastern Airlines\n(New York, N.Y.)\n-Operations\n-Maintenance\nAvions Marcel Dassault\n(France)\n-Thermal protection subsystems\n-Insulation subsystems\nDornier\n(Germany)\n-Subsystems technology\nSPACE SHUTTLE, PHASE B CONTRACTOR \"TEAMS\"\nPAGE 3\nENGINE\nPratt & Whitney Aircraft\n(Hartford, Conn. for turbo\nmachinery)\nFlorida Research & Development Center\n(West Palm Beach, Fla. for\nmanufacture and assembly)\nAerojet Liquid Rocket Corp.\n(Sacramento, Cal.)\nRocketdyne, North American Rockwell\n(Canoga Park, Cal.)\nC\nCALIFORNIA\nthe ideal solution\nto the search for\nSpace Shuttle\nlaunch & retrieval base\nas well as for\nflight testing\nSpace Shuttle's new era dictates different needs for space\nlaunches and retrievals. At the outset of America's space age\nwe were seeking both thrust and reliability. Then, Cape Ken-\nnedy afforded the needed boost of an eastward thrust near\nthe Equator and ocean-overflight as a potential safety haven\nwhile we improved reliability.\nBut, the Space Shuttle has different requirements. The Shuttle\nwill have assured thrust-capability, a necessity for several\nazimuth angles of launch, an emergency ability to abort safely\nand intact, and the intent of a glide or powered landing at a\ndry land base. These abilities, and concurrent requirements,\nprompt the search for an applicable base-site in the continen-\ntal United States.\n2\nCalifornia's qualifications,\nCombining Vandenberg\nand Edwards:\nStrategically essential\nDemonstrated necessity\nForeign avoidance\nFavorably situated\nCalifornia offers a solution\nOptimum climate\nCalifornia's solution is the currently existing, applicable, and\nExisting facilities\nConvenient fuel\ncomplementary facilities inherent in the combined use of the\nbases at Vandenberg and Edwards. Vandenberg for launch\nAirfield capability\nWaterborne adaptable\nand most retrievals; Edwards for alternate and emergency\nAccessible manufacturers\nretrievals.\nAscending importance\nThereby, the use of Edwards for flight-testing implies that\nEliminates moth-balling\nfacilities developed for such testing could be economically\nOverwater trajectory\nphased into follow-on use for retrievals. The proximity of the\nDual usefulness\ntwo bases makes possible an efficient interchange between\nPerformance advantages\nthe two, initially during testing and ultimately during opera-\nSafety zoned\ntions, without costly dislocation. Ultimately, Edwards may also\nSparsely inhabited\nbe as practical a launch site as Vandenberg.\nCasualty avoiding\nCombined, they resolve most objections found elsewhere, and\nDispersing sonic-boom\ncombined they equal or surpass most isolated and individual\nCompatible mating\nadvantages claimed elsewhere.\nCost efficient\nSkilled manpower\nFor several years of conventional missile operations, Cape\nReceptive economy\nKennedy as well as Vandenberg have admirably served our\nAerospace compatibility\nmissile needs. New needs stimulate a reevaluation. Compari-\nManning capabilities\nsons and questions on the following pages are tempered with\nEnvironment conscious\nrespect and appreciation for the contributions made thus far\nCumulatively superior\nto space exploration by the site and people of Cape Kennedy.\nHistorically, the Cape is unquestioned. However, new needs\nrequire questioning of old assumptions.\nChoice of a launch-retrieval base site should be made on a\npriority-rated scale ranked by significance to national goals\nVandenberg\nand weighted by value to operations. California endorses a\ndecision evaluated on that criteria. California has the quali-\nEdwards\nfications to justify a decision reached on that basis.\n3\n4\nStrategically essential\nForeign avoidance\nReportedly, the overwhelming majority of America's orbiting\nShots from Vandenberg avoid flight over foreign territory dur-\nspace shots are southerly, both polar and retrograde. There-\ning initial ascent. For Space Shuttle, a California launch site\nby, polar shots observe the Earth perpendicularly at every\nalso avoids the booster's return flight over foreign territory.\nlatitude as it rotates below. America's polar shots start from\nThe problems of having dropped missile parts upon Cuba\nVandenberg.\nfrom Cape Kennedy, the threat of the Cuban missile crisis\nRetrograde shots achieve sun-synchronous orbits to view the\nyears later, and the national policy decision to avoid Cuban\nEarth consistently in sunlight or dark. 133 of America's 136\noverflights underscore the shortcomings of Cape Kennedy for\nretrograde shots were fired from Vandenberg.\npolar and some retrograde shots which comprise the bulk of\nThe majority of shots America evidently deems strategically\nour space azimuth-angle needs. Space Shuttle shots to the\nessential are made from Vandenberg. Prudently, we should\nsouth from Cape Kennedy would overfly Cuba and Panama;\nassure our strategic obligations first, our less-essential obli-\nboosters would be vulnerable returning over Cuba at a 13,000-\ngations thereafter.\nfoot altitude. Such a possibility induces the likelihood of ex-\nploitation of our foreign neighbors by our international com-\npetitors.\nDemonstrated necessity\nFavorably situated\nVandenberg's necessity is evident from the decision to\nCombined or separately, the two California sites are favorably\ndevelop our capability there even though initiating the Cape\nsituated. They facilitate strategic needs, offer coastal avail-\nKennedy space site.\nability or inland isolation, semi-rural locale but nearby metro-\nSince 1957 the need for a Vandenberg capability has been\npolitan requirements, southerly for thrust of Equatorial-near-\ndeveloped and demonstrated; a necessity not satisfied else-\nness yet Western in weather advantages, and convenience to\nwhere.\naerospace centers and suppliers.\n5\n6\nConvenient fuel\nCalifornia already has both the natural gas network as well as\nplant facilities for converting natural gas to liquid hydrogen.\nOptimum climate\nCalifornia's liquid hydrogen plants can produce more than\nthe 90 tons-per-day the Shuttle will require during its peak\nPredictable weather and evenness of climate aid operations.\noperation. California has over three times the liquid hydrogen\nCalifornia affords inland desert dryness and a less pervasive\nplant capacity of any other state.\ncoastal humidity than that deteriorating Cape Kennedy facili-\nties. Minimum necessity for protection from weather extremes\nWithin 150 miles of either Vandenberg or Edwards, plants can\nfavors operations.\nsupply by tank truck more than adequate fuel for the Shuttle's\ninitial years.\nAt Vandenberg thunderstorms occur less than 5 days a year,\nwhile thunderstorms at Cape Kennedy average 75 annually.\nBy contrast, the Cape Kennedy site requires a 740-mile haul\nLightning activity, which is almost unknown at Vandenberg\nby truck or train for most of the liquid hydrogen consumed.\nand Edwards, occurs 100 days a year at Cape Kennedy where\nOne study concluded: the costly alternative is to dismantle\nlightning strikes between 20 and 40 times within a square mile\none of California's plants and reconstruct it in Florida.\neach year.\nA California site also makes unnecessary another alternative,\nThe modest wind gust level at Vandenberg is tolerable, com-\nthat of an international agreement for converting crude oil to\npared with gusts approaching hurricane velocity at Cape\nliquid hydrogen in another country for shipment to America,\nKennedy.\nthereby avoiding American import duties on crude oil.\nExisting facilities\nThe largest launch area in the western world, Vandenberg\nmaintains 44 launch sites of which 30 are active. With a range\nten times the size of Cape Kennedy, the Vandenberg base\ncomprises 100,000 acres traversed by 327 miles of roads,\ndotted with 3,500 buildings-1,400 of which relate to base\noperations, and 21/4 million square feet of which are occupied\nby missile contractors. Vandenberg represents a construction\ninvestment since 1957 of $2.4 billion.\nVandenberg and Edwards admirably satisfy the caveat in site\nselection: \"make maximum use of existing facilities.\"\nThe premier landing and testing facility in the Nation exists\nat Edwards insofar as extensiveness, visibility, unobstructed\naccess and existing facilities. Covering over 300,000 acres,\nand served by an array of hangars, buildings, shops and labo-\nratories, Edwards maintains an assembly of tracking facilities,\nhouses the Aerospace Research Pilot School and since 1953\nhas conducted rocket test firings at the $150 million aggre-\ngation of high thrust rocket test stands and research equip-\nment buildings.\n8\n7\nAirfield capability\nVandenberg's airfield adjoins a likely Shuttle launch complex.\nAdequacy is demonstrated by its use for training by commer-\ncial pilots of 747 aircraft which approximate the booster in\nsize. Extensive flat land surrounds the strip, making expan-\nsion of its 8,000 feet convenient to achieve.\nEdwards is one of the Nation's largest landing areas. A 15,000-\nWaterborne adaptable\nfoot concrete runway adjoins the 44 square mile sun-hard-\nCoastal accessibility makes Vandenberg convenient by boat\nened, wind-smoothed Rogers Dry Lake. In turn, Rogers con-\nor barge to all the Pacific aerospace ports from Seattle to San\nnects with 27 square miles of Rosamond Dry Lake bed. Seven\nDiego and to shipments from the Gulf Coast.\nnatural runways criss-cross the 11-mile length of Rogers Dry\nLake. The supportive strength of these dry lake beds is equiv-\nA sheltered lagoon exists on Vandenberg's 36-mile coastline\nwithin a short distance of the intended Shuttle site. Limited\nalent to a three-foot thickness of concrete and can support\nup to 250 pounds per square inch.\ndredging could prepare this convenient natural port to re-\nceive Shuttle barge shipments. Reportedly, the sand bottom\nThe largest and heaviest of the world's aircraft land here.\nis coarser and less subject to silting and wave action than the\nThree billion dollars worth of aircraft have been saved since\nCape Kennedy barge channel.\n1946 from loss of crash landing by directing them to Edwards.\nOver a decade of logistics experience has been perfected at\nBy contrast, a landing strip adjacent to a Shuttle complex at\nVandenberg in missile and aerospace shipments by plane,\nCape Kennedy would have to be built at more than $1,500 a\ntruck, and rail. Shuttle shipments can adapt this knowledge\nfoot.\nin the handling of large and awkward components.\n9\n10\nAccessible manufacturers\nEliminates moth-balling\nConvenience to manufacture and assembly is a cost-efficiency\nCost savings occur when our space program can avoid incur-\ncriterion in selecting a base site.\nring the relatively unproductive expense of moth-balling and\nVirtually every manufacturer earmarked as a likely partici-\nthe follow-on reactivation expenses.\npant, including payload and servicing contractors, has a\nFacilities at Vandenberg and Edwards will continue to be used\nmajor installation in the nearby California and Pacific Coast\nin a regular schedule of operations and the expense of moth-\naerospace complex. Most are located within an easy drive of\nballing while awaiting the Shuttle era can be avoided. Further-\nVandenberg or Edwards, making shipment less time-consum-\nmore, construction at Vandenberg and Edwards could be\ning, servicing convenient, and reducing the costs for rotation\nscheduled when timely and feasible rather than being initiated\nof personnel.\nin the near-future as a means to stretch-out, prolong, and\nAll major aircraft builders use Edwards for test purposes;\nmaintain an otherwise declining level of activity.\nmost of those engaged in today's missile hardware business\nmaintain personnel and service facilities at Vandenberg.\nOverwater trajectory\nVandenberg's bay-window on the Pacific scans 210° of ocean\nfront, from 120° to 330°.\nThe overwhelming preponderance of our current space shots,\nboth polar and retrograde, capitalize on these overwater tra-\njectories from Vandenberg.\nTherefore, if an overwater trajectory is advantageous during\nthe Shuttle's development as well as for frequently used\nazimuth angles yet paralleling relatively nearby emergency\nor alternate landing sites in the continental United States with-\nout requiring foreign landing rights\nVandenberg's location\ncombines these favorable factors.\nAscending importance\nVandenberg's importance and frequency of use will corre-\nspondingly increase as the Apollo era ends and as Space Lab\nis completed.\nThe diminishing of space work elsewhere, and the four or five\nyear hiatus in manned space flight, increases the reliance on\nand need for this major remaining site.\nThe continuing necessity for Vandenberg's capabilities, the\nsteady schedule of operations, a readily accessible work\nforce, and a physical plant maintained in response to current\noperations increase the legitimacy of Vandenberg's impor-\ntance.\n11\n12\nEDWARDS\nDual usefulness\nBoth services, NASA and Defense, can and do perform mis-\nsions at Vandenberg. Conversely, Cape Kennedy has a dimin-\nishing usefulness for defense missions, primarily including\nthe peaceful yet prudent observational flights.\nCost-conscious site selection urges the choice of a single\nCalifornia location suitable for both services rather than the\nluxury of two, new, separate Shuttle bases created simultane-\nously for each of two services.\nPerformance advantages\nDog-leg maneuvers to attain orbits are costly in fuel-weight.\nSoutherly and polar orbits lack the eastward earth rotation for\nadded thrust. Therefore, dog-leg maneuvers are least desir-\nable in achieving such orbits. In evaluating site trade-offs,\nCalifornia locations require no dog-leg maneuvers for south-\nerly orbits as does Cape Kennedy.\nHigher elevations, such as Edwards' 2,302 feet elevation, con-\nsume less fuel to exit the drag of earth's atmosphere and\ncould accommodate an additional 2,300 pound payload. Ed-\nVANDENBERG\nwards qualifies if high elevation inland launch sites are pre-\nferred over coastal locations.\nSafety zoned\nEdwards encompasses 300,000 acres; Vandenberg 100,000.\nThis provides an important buffer margin of safety. The nearly\nvertically rising Shuttle will have reached a 100,000-foot ele-\nvation before traversing 20 miles on the ground. Although\nengineered for intact abort, a catastrophe-prone critical\nperiod could occur during the initial rise prior to separation\nbefore sufficient altitude is reached for guided landing.\nIn this interim, a margin of safety is assured for the off-base\npopulace if debris falls within the perimeter of a large land-\narea base. Narrow or limited-area base sites cannot offer this\nsafety-zone afforded by Vandenberg and Edwards, two of\nAmerica's largest bases in ground area.\n14\n13\nSparsely inhabited\nVandenberg and Edwards combine a unique feature: sparsely\nsettled, low-population density nearby, yet easy accessibility\nto the cosmopolitan advantages of major metropolitan cen-\nters.\nBoth satisfy a preference specified by one study: low-popula-\ntion density for the initial 100-mile downrange along the most\nlikely used azimuth angles.\nThe desert immediately surrounding Edwards is one of\nAmerica's least populated areas; Vandenberg is in the heart\nof a sparsely-settled, primarily rural area. Likely eastward\nShuttle corridors pass over lightly inhabited national forests\nand desert terrain.\nDispersing sonic-boom\nOrbiter sonic booms can be dispersed on return over the\nPacific Ocean for all Vandenberg eastward launches; south-\nerly launches can disperse orbiter sonic boom off the Pacific\nCoast by means of a dog-leg return glide angle. This offshore\ndispersal of orbiter sonic boom is achievable by practically\nno other candidate site without the costly establishment of\nalternative landing sites developed solely for that purpose.\nCasualty avoiding\nMost orbiter returns to Edwards will also disperse their sonic\nEdwards and Vandenberg claim at least seven factors that aid\nbooms in the sparsely settled desert test range where aircraft\nsound effects have long been isolated from the public.\nin minimizing casualty possibilities:\n1. extensive and protective base-site perimeter\nBooster flights south from Vandenberg disperse their sonic\n2. available down-range corridors\nbooms over the Pacific; eastward booster flights effect booms\n3. overwater corridors for heavily used flight azimuths\nlargely within the Edwards test range, national forest or south-\n4. low population density for at least the first 100 miles of a corridor\nwest desert country.\n5. opportunity for the Shuttle to achieve substantial altitude before\noverflying even moderate-sized population centers\nUnlike some other candidate sites, California launched Shut-\n6. clearly defined landing alternatives, either scheduled or emergency\ntles will subject no other international neighbor to our sonic\n7. consistently reliable weather making advance planning possible\nbooms.\n15\n16\nCost efficient\nAn array of inherent Vandenberg and Edwards advantages\nCompatible mating\ncontribute to efficiency and the minimizing of cost, both in\nMost engineering studies tend to prefer horizontal roll-out of\ninitiating as well as long term operating of a Shuttle base.\nthe booster and orbiter with mating at the launch pad, if not\nStrategic need is satisfied without assuming costs of duplication to\nin advance.\nachieve that capability elsewhere\nSome studies advocate lifting booster and orbiter, at the pad,\nTest development facilities at Edwards could cost-effectively translate\ninto retrieval base operations serving Vandenberg\nby strong-back and mate at that time.\nFavorable climate has cost advantages\nCape Kennedy's vertical Vehicle Assembly Building imposes\nExisting facilities minimize new construction costs\nan obligation there to examine at length the possibility of ver-\nThe expense of additional natural gas network system is not needed\nNearby liquid hydrogen and oxygen plants reduce new plant expense\ntical mating and crawler-transporter roll-out.\nExisting airfields make construction minimal\nNeither California site, Vandenberg or Edwards, impose the\nCoastal accessibility reduces costs of accommodating larger components\nNearby manufacturers diminish several expenses of accommodation\nobligation of devising engineering techniques or modifica-\nVandenberg's continuing operation minimizes otherwise costlier\ntions of the Shuttle to satisfy extensive existing structures.\nstretch-out elsewhere\nEither method, horizontal or vertical, is thereby adaptable to\nMoth-balling expenditures are unnecessary\nthe California sites, whichever represents priorities of prac-\nManning facilities may reduce new construction costs\ntical engineering and preferred design for orbiter and booster.\nCompetitively available manpower indicates cost efficiencies\nAn estimated $287 million is required to convert Cape Ken-\nnedy to Shuttle use, not including correspondingly higher\ncosts of operation. Yet this site would not be universally use-\nful for the Shuttle. On the other hand, that figure represents\nabout two-thirds of the cost for converting California sites to\nmore widely useful Shuttle missions where many operational\ncosts would be less expensive.\nSkilled manpower\nNumerically, the total of California's experienced aerospace\nmanpower is over twice that of nearly all other major site-\ncontending states combined.\nIn duration, California's aerospace manpower experience is\nfrequently two generations in depth and often over three de-\ncades in length.\nThe size of the working populace, 7½ to 8% of which are\nnow\nunemployed the majority being aerospace, among\nwhich 14% are unemployed indicates a larger total unem-\nployed aerospace populace than any other state or combina-\ntion thereof.\nFor Shuttle base staffing this implies:\n1. Cost advantage of competitive availability\n2. Many applicants per opening thereby making selection for quality more likely\n3. A work force already residing in an area of predetermined preference\n4. Less necessity for costly inducements to relocate at isolated locations\n5. Unlikely need for extensive education to upgrade the work force\n18\n17\nReceptive economy\nManning capabilities\nCalifornia's extensive and highly diversified economy could\nThe Manned Orbiting Laboratory with its allied training,\nabsorb the infusion of Shuttle-related activity without shock\nlaunch, housing and servicing facilities exists at Vandenberg.\nof dislocation. On the contrary, even the placement of nearly\nThe base has been brought to the threshold of manned space\nall Shuttle-related work in California would not equal or off-\nflight as a natural adjunct to its unmanned capabilities. This\nset the larger loss of aerospace work which California has\nreadiness could phase into Shuttle use.\nsuffered in recent years.\nEdwards has extensive experience at studying and adapting\nUnlike isolated or rural Shuttle base candidate sites in other\nthe talents of man to the capabilities of advanced aircraft.\nstates, a study concluded that location of the Shuttle base at\nBoth sites could easily serve Shuttle's manned requirements.\nVandenberg would only moderately affect the nearby local\neconomy by maintaining the same modest rate of growth ex-\nEnvironment conscious\nperienced during the past ten or fifteen years.\nAll site candidates should be studied for their likely effect on\nCalifornia's gross national product is equivalent to that of the\nman and nature, their respect for land use, their impingement\nworld's seventh largest nation, ranking in between that of the\nupon other needs, and their effect on natural terrain.\nUnited Kingdom and Italy. The scope of California's economy,\nthe size of populace and area, make it equivalent to a major\nVandenberg has witnessed several generations of use, yet has\nAmerican region than the limited and conventional interpre-\nmaintained a pleasant accommodation with nature, preserva-\ntation of a state.\ntion of most of the natural terrain and phenomenon, and has\nhad a minimum of unsightly nearby commercial exploitation.\nLocal residents are aware of continuing this responsibility\ntoward the total environment.\nEdwards, a highly isolated location with very little plant and\nanimal life, has nevertheless made only the slightest altera-\ntion on the vastness and stark outline of the California desert.\nShuttle activity at Edwards is unlikely to induce any appre-\nciable change in the environment. Edwards' vast size, on the\nother hand, offers an opportunity to continue preservation of\nthis unique segment of American terrain.\nAerospace compatibility\nHistorically, California is an accustomed partner in the devel-\nopment of flight. Californians are attuned to aerospace ac-\ntivity, accept it as natural to modern life, are agreeable to its\npresence, industry is attuned to its requirements, and the\neconomy is conscious of its practices.\nCalifornia's level of understanding and sophistication about\naerospace makes it an accepting environment for the estab-\nlishment of a Shuttle base.\n19\n20\nCALIFOI\nSPAC\nSHUT'\nTAS\nFOR\nCumulatively superior\n445 South Figue\nIn total, the reasons for California Shuttle-site suita-\nLos Angeles, Cali\nbility are numerous. In importance of contribution\n(213) 687-\ntoward satisfying Shuttle needs, the reasons are in-\nfluential. In necessity, the reasons are logical.\nThe foregoing has scanned the more obvious quali-\nfications. Each is worthy of greater investigation.\nEach will reveal an increasing number of justifica-\ntions for establishment of a Shuttle base in Cali-\nfornia; justifications which compare favorably with\nother candidates, justifications which cumulatively\nendorse California, and justifications which con-\ntinue an already established importance of Cali-\nfornia sites for space endeavors."
}